Right, so you are reasonably skeptical about dates on cameras, but you will reprint and amplify the smears of others without examining their agendas, without asking for the context of their observations, and without performing the slightest check of their facts.

RealityCheck,Lookit, at absolute maximum, the best you and our "AlphaLiberal" alias can hope to prove is that the picture of Kerry eating alone in a mess was taken before he made a stupid joke. And if it makes you feel any better, I'll stipulate for sake of argument that you're right: the photo's months old, and Kerry was snubbed on a visit to Iraq before he made a hash of his dumbass joke. But even granting that much, all you've proved that Kerry has been considered a loser in those circles for even longer than the people spreading that photograph around were insinuating. With friends like you - and his own mouth - Kerry doesn't need enemies.

XWL said... "I know you tire of the commenters who talk about how hot you are for someone in their fifties"

reality check, Professor Althouse isn't a journalist. That's sort of what it comes down to. Are her standard way way less than journalistic for some issues? You betcha. And I gotta say, anyone who comes to this site looking to be informed about current events --- well, that's not me, nor the other people I know who love this site.

There's a sort of caveat to that statement regarding matters in her professional area of expertise (and even then, she seems to define that as narrowly as academics generally do: on a lot of law cases she prefaces by saying, this isn't really my area, but...)

Given that the site isn't -- and doesn't bill itself as -- news journalism, nor even mostly political commentary, I guess I can't make much sense of the bitterness of the criticism leveled at it. It seems loony to me. Someone'll get elected, the good professor will have something to say about it, she's got her preferences but if they aren't the electorate's, life goes on. I gather if you think for whatever reason it's crucial to influence what materials she chooses to put on the site, that she responds well to courtesy. Go figger.

Me, if I can influence what appears on the site: more of the randomly weird, please.

Simon as usual you miss the point. The point is that one photograph whether taken by the AP or by Ben of Messopotamia, a former Bush SpeechWriter, means nothing.

I suspect the photograph is real and was taken last week, but not based on the photograph itself, but based on the other photographs that seem to corroborate it.

Sad thing is for you and Ann, those photographs show Kerry surrounded by lots of people.

There is also a report at Powerline that says that Kerry entered that mess hall within ten minutes of its closing so of course no one was tehre, and it goes on to say he was treated no differently than other celebs.

Comparing him to O'Reilly who has a show broadcast daily on Armed Forces Radio is apples and oranges.

The point is that neither Ann, nor you, nor any of the other lawyers here knows any of the context of this photo -- when it was taken, who it was taken by, what their agenda was, etc., etc., and yet you draw from this that Kerry is hated.

I think your conclusions about all of this say far more about yourself than it does about Kerry. And what it says is that you guys are either fools or tools.

Again, the real issue right now is the escalation of the fight during one of Iraq's worst months and against the advice of the Pentagon and the Troops and against the wishes of the American People.

But go ahead and kern away. Fool or Tool, yes, but you are really a lawyer?

This is one of those interesting comments where the reader has to wonder if the author has their own, private definition of a word that every other speaker of the English language is unaware of. "Outrage"? What examples would you give where Ann was "outraged" on this blog about anything?

Alpha Lib, so does everybody demonstrate selective skepticism and outrage -- we have experience, we have ideas about what's true. I grew up with Kerry as my Senator and have campaigned for him -- and John Kerry is, on a personal level, a dick, or at least that's what I can see and what the buzz on Beacon Hill ever was. I'd have chosen not to eat with him. I have before.

"Selective skepticism"? Alpha Lib, John Kerry flat out insulted the troops. Maybe through stupidity or error, but he did. Then he flubbed the apology for days. But somehow until you saw the Phil Carter link you questioned even that! Physician, heal thyself!

Professor Althouse links to stuff which amuses and interests her. That photo did both. OK. If I set up some little blog, and it got 10 hits a month, and I did the same, you might come in nicely and say, look, I know you don't like Kerry, but that photo is maybe bogus because....and I like to think maybe I'd listen. I know Althouse does. And she doesn't play the "pundit" game a lot: I don't recall many claims of expertise on politics or insider knowledge.

But, no, you're playing a nasty pissing match here, because, well, a lot of people read the site. C'mon, honestly, how do you think you sound? Do you think it helps progressivism? Or if it doesn't do much of anything, why pick on Professor A.?

Me, I'm pissed at Professor A. because i had to learn from another source (NPR) that the Buddha boy has reappeared, and, that's the kind of thing I expect to hear here first. But fine, she's moves on and I haven't. That happens. Damn you, Althouse!

Sanjay, it's true I'm an Althouse critic. (But there's so much material!) Political bloggers have critics and that's part of the package.

You and I disagree on Kerry. I don't think he intended to make the troops the butt of his joke, even with the apology. Mainly because it makes no political sense whatsoever. Slip of the tongue? Yes. Intentionally slamming the troops? Uh ... why would he do that?

Simon, that's a good one on the outrage! I guess I've witnessed some from Ann, very recently, but largely agree.

Althouse is a lost cause for engaged discussion at any rate. Won't stand behind her words.

There is something very wrong here. The picture of Althouse dated 2066 does not jibe with the smaller picture above her profile hyperlink. She appears to be wearing the same blouse but her hair is parted on the left! What is the meaning of this? Is it some type of subliminal message signifying a future shifting of ideology?

There is something very wrong here. The picture of Althouse dated 2066 does not jibe with the smaller picture above her profile hyperlink. She appears to be wearing the same blouse but her hair is parted on the left! What is the meaning of this? Is it some type of subliminal message signifying a future shifting of ideology?

No. It means that those Taiwanese, boarded up in their sweatshops, sure do make durable clothing. Thank God for outsourcing:-)

Obviously the liberals here commenting , and insinuating that the military does not hold a grudge on those who insult them....it ain't the 1st time Kerry insulted them (like about Vietnam for instance)....

I understand his recent flights in Iraq were code named "Weasel 2".... not only that, but Hillary's last visit was supposedly code named "Broomstick12".....

Bet the names were kinder, gentler for the Bush-Cheney-Rice-et al visits!

2066 - Hmmmmm....1,000 years after the Norman invasion of Britain..must be significant!

Alpha liberal - If you want real class discrimination look no further than Bush's entry into the "Champagne Unit" at TXANG from a prominent family member -- where professional athletes, and politically connected young men sought refuge from a war already raging in the jungles. 101 Guardsmen total died in Vietnam, and yet Bush could even fufill his obligations there, not reporting for a physical, and getting grounded.

Why Vietnam Vets wouldn't be furious about this is puzzling.

While the Guard did not serve in significant numbers in Iraq, they played a critical role in serving in the larger War, the Cold War, then raging. Bush's mission was to intercept Soviet or Cuban bombers then operating out of Cuba to defend Naval and energy targets in the Gulf and along the Texas/Louisiana coast. To do that he had to fly one of the most dangerous planes ever in the US fighter jet inventory, he had to be nuclear weapons qualified.

The reason you will not hear the mainstream Vietnam Vet ever criticize a Guard member or someone that "missed Vietnam" because they were "safe in a submarine" or in a tank in Germany is that Vets recognize service despite where that service happened. As long as they didn't dishonor themselves. Which a substantial portion of Vets believe Kerry did.

It is a very difficult notion for Lefties who never served but believe that all Vets should think as the civilian Lefties think, to grasp.

Anyways, enough on Kerry. He's yesterday's toast. Even his last band of loyal "Kerry in 2008" supporters should recognize that.

Reality Check, Alpha Lib, I'm curious. Have either one of you seen the SNL skits where Chevy Chase imitates Pres. Gerald Ford by falling all the time? Did you find it funny? What about Dan Akroyd as a naive Jimmy Carter? Or how 'bout the brilliant SNL Will Ferrel / Darrell Hammond Presidential debate sketches? I thought they were all pretty hilarious. Here's the deal. They all create, or play on, the most glaring faults of each of those individuals. Ford did not trip every time he got off a plane. Carter was not naive. Bush does come off as dumb sometimes, just as Gore does seem to be a know-it-all. But that is the nature of media when covering the famous; the video camera captures the most obvious and pronounced attributes of their personalities - it likes things that move or stand out. Like it or not, any public figure will sooner or later be on the receiving end of satire based on personal quirks. Kerry may be the most well meaning person on the planet, but he has this unique talent of coming off as a total snob and having a tin ear when it comes to politics.

I'm perfectly confident that in 2066, assuming we live to make the medical advances cut, we will all be able to look whatever age we desire. I expect most people will choose to appear about 25 years old. Also, I expect all "pictures" from 2066 to be in 3D and Smell-o-Vision. I call shenanigans on this "picture from the future." Fawning fans like derve, freder, iam, fazio & dklittl may buy your pronunciations of time travel with cult like zeal just like they rush to agree with all your opinions. Just know you have at least one skeptic in the audience.

So, I guess all this leads to my perfectly non pervy question: do you have a picture of yourself at 25?

Michael Farris: This is the stupidest non-issue ever and will remain so until the rightwing blogosphere digs up another, even stupider non-issue to ass slap each other about.

How many months did the left go on and on about Bush and the plastic turkey (which wasn't plastic)?

How many YEARS did the left distort 16 words Bush spoke in a state of the union address?

You know, I still run into lefties who, having deeply drunk the Michael Moore koolaid, falsely claim Bush flew the bin Laden family out before flights were resumed after 9/11, when in fact it was Richard Clark, and it was after flights were resumed.

I could go on. Making mountains out of non-existing mole hills has been the hallmark of the left for the last six years.

BTW, Ann, I really dig your flavor of snark. Touché! The next time I make it to Madison, the coffee is on me.

Sanjay said;'And I gotta say, anyone who comes to this site looking to be informed about current events --- well, that's not me, nor the other people I know who love this site.'

Heh, heh, amen to that, Sanjay.

I suspect there are many of us here [waves to Elizabeth, Drill Sgnt, SC - who makes very nice tables, IR - caretaker of many, DTL, and others] who are opposites in the extreme regarding POV, but none the less, we do lurk or post fairly regularily, and may not agree with our host much of the time, but we do keep showing up.

I have a very dear friend whose kitchen table is the centre of being for many. DF and I are polar opposites in every way, but I keep showing up and she keeps asking where I am when I'm not there.

I get a kick out of Althouse, for various reasons. But Althouse--Ann-the-woman-behind-it--is not actually a blithering idiot, which means I'm not going on on a limb when I say that I'd bet real money that not for one second does she believe that I agree with her about everything--whether in whole, in part, in kind, or in degree, depending on the issue. More important, I think she's figured out that I disagree--profoundly, in some cases--in a whole number of areas.

Those who think you're ever so much smarter than Althouse: Why are you having a problem figuring that out?

Let me be clearer, because I must: When I said "speaks volumes," that wasn't a whack at you, Buddy, but a compliment.

You captured an important point, one of the most important ones.

The conflation to which I referred was specifically not directed toward your comment, but rather was inspired by an extension of it.

Your comment went straight to the heart of it (and a lot). Thanks.

Speaking more generally:

Having to take the time to make sure that it's understood that I wasn't, for example, insulting Buddy is why I've decide that trying to **cough**cough**say anything **cough**cough** substantive**cough cough** that would be given due consideration is a fool's errand.

So, you know what, the alpha's and ploopus's of the world (emphasis on the plurals)? You've won in a teeny, tiny, teeny, weeny little insignificant way, in the blogoworld, itself--so far--largely insignificant in terms of the majority of actual, real, living, breathing people of all walks and ilks in life.. I don't mean just today, but rather generally.

Yank, yank, yank away.

The question is: What do you want to add, add, add? Give, give, give?

What do you have to say, say, say?

Phrase what you want done in a "it shall be" sense, not a "it won't be" sense.

And while you're at it--just to inject that personal "person" sense--tell us what you, personally, have done in the last week--month--year--to better the lives of an individual person--actual people--the kind you have to look in the face, especially the littlest ones--in the last year.

reader_iam, you may've read too much into the question--tho improve it you did. I was just wondering if AL had realized, that his/her repeated mentionings of the mesopotamian guy's partisan CV in order to discredit the guy on that basis, that AL him/herself should then (in view of his/her obvious partisanship) rightfully be discredited also, on that same basis.

I agree with Elliot. Sen. Kerry is now a proverb, a bit of meaning with which millions--billions--the world over can reasonably predict an aquaintance's basic qualities simply by whether or not the aquaintance likes, dislikes, or is ambivalent about the senator.

Despite the insanity of it all: you knew it would have that effect, and that's (at least one reason) why you chose to say it.

The funny thing is, the lefties think they came out ahead this round. They proved you have a casual attitude towards the truth, or something. Despite the fact that at all times you were telling the truth, at no point in time did you do anything dishonest, and their suspicions were debunked. Despite all that, they cling to the idea that they've tarnished you. What a bunch of idiots.

I guess in a real war, if your side loses, the proper conclusion is inescapable. But in the blogosphere (and politics in general), no one ever has to admit they were wrong.

So, we have a Republican partisan using his post to spread partisan attacks against Democratic Senators. . . . That's a problem, because our armed forces should not be politicized.

Except when they want to desert and make anti-Bush political statements.

But excepting that, do you really find it exceptional that a politics junkie might--gasp!--take a picture of an important political figure? Heck, he wants to be our next president, and politics junkies are supposed to ignore him?

Just as, in proving the legitimacy of the lonely photo, a photo showing Kerry with more soldiers was used (undercutting the original point, perhaps), you've highlighted the fact that a pro-Bush partisan is on active duty in our military. So much for the whole "chickenhawk" nonsense.

Remember, AL, the whole point of impugning the legitimacy of the photo was to debunk the notion that soldiers hate John Kerry. All you've done is pointed to a soldier who... hates John Kerry!

Anyone who supports the war and isn't on active duty is a chickenhawk. Anyone who is on active duty is a fascist. Gotcha.

XWL: I know you tire of the commenters who talk about how hot you are for someone in their fifties, but if that's you in your 110s then you must be doing something very right.

Clearly, she has been spending lots of time with her robot.

I assume that Simon and I are the "commenters," so let me respond to this foul libel. I have never said that Ann is hot for someone in her fifties. I have said that Ann is hot. Without qualification. The commenter who qualifies Ann's hotness is Simon. I had no idea that Ann was in her fifties and I readily assumed mid- to late forties. And, despite my apparent ignorance, I still say that's a damned lucky robot.

Now look here! If you're going to talk about libellous remarks, tongue in cheek or otherwise, that remark simply cannot go unrebutted. I've never qualified that point, I have merely urged a degree of tact, respect and propriety in public remarks on the subject.

I've never qualified that point, I have merely urged a degree of tact, respect and propriety in public remarks on the subject.

There you go again! This isn't Highlander! There can be more than one Sycophant of Ann! No matter how much you feel the quickening, please refrain from trying to chop my head off. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Paul

Ann can do her own decapitation quite nicely, as Jonah Goldberg can attest. And if I recall, Ann chastised a commenter for assuming she wanted to be respected.

Now, on to your blasphemy. You say that Ann looks better now than she did when she was approx. 25-30.

By contrast I would say that while Ann is eternally and perfectly hot in her hotness, her hotness is un-quantifiable. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_fluid

Hmm...perhaps this is tiresome....sigh. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion_machine

Yet the dining room pic, likely a meaningless shot of some guy eating lunch, will find a place on the JFKerry Post-Election Album of Pathos simply because it fits the right's memes about him too well. And you've heard them all here.

Were he even the tiniest bit a sympathetic character, capturing such a mundane moment would say nothing at all except, "Look! He's eating in our mess hall!"

But it's impossible to separate Kerry's past from anything he does. He couldn't even ride a bicycle without vicious comments on the entire event, from his bike to his clothes to his body language. After awhile, you have to wonder whether these comments do or do not say something meanngful about the man himself.

And my suspicion is that the right has a good bead on the guy. Does the left have a similar bead on Bush? I dunno. His behavior after the Dem victories surprised me. Lesson? If Hillart wants to win, she'd better do something about her similar negatives, it seems to me.

It seems pretty obvious that the troops don't want to have anything to do with Kerry, and it's pointless to debate whether or not the photo is real, but I have to wonder--is this really helpful at all to the dialogue? "Ha, ha, the troops hate the senator from Massachusetts?" Regardless of whether or not it's true, I hate this gleeful notion among conservative blogs that our soldiers love Republicans and hate Democrats; that can only further division, rather than bring people together in support of our troops.

...It kind of reminds me of the rejoicing when the NYC firefighters booed Hillary Clinton. Folks, if you dislike Hillary Clinton and/or John Kerry and have the opportunity to meet them, why don't you introduce yourself and give them a piece of your mind?

Insane how "jumping on JohnKerry" is so important to the partisan right.

It's not about the camera times -- really where were all the skeptics when the airtight camera times allegedly proved the innocence of the Duke boys who were snapping pictures of their rented stripper? (Defense attorneys put the camera times up well before the DNA lack of evidence)

It's funny really,because while there are so many more "meaty" issues confronting our nation -- legitimate subjects of discussion. The new partisan media of radio, blogs, and sockpuppet blog commenters (who may or may not be what they represent :) would rather have you eat the sugar candy and talk about folks like JohnKerry still... and coming soon, Hillary Clinton.

It will keep Prof.Althouse and her boys in "extras" from the added income supplementing her professorial expertise. Maybe dental care will improve in the future, and you can easily get repleacement teeth from consuming all this sugar...

ps. How bout that new Israeli settlement set to go up? How bout those soldiers killed yesterday in Iraq? No takers, just JohnKerry has no friends?

How about talking about a tougher topic, akin to Bill Cosby? Fallen military standards. Do you folks really believe that we are sending our smartest anymore? Like Cosby, Kerry touched on a truth that is much easier to deny than to acknowledge and wonder if we should be fighting wars that the more intelligent amongst us would never consent to allow their sons to fight.

No, of course you don't need parental consent. But like a parent might "send" her child on a foreign school trip, soldiers' parents "send" their child overseas on all of our behalfs.

To note that this is not a shared sacrifice -- that some segments of the population (the rural, the poorer, the less educated, the newcomers etc) are the ones fighting the wars, while our more educated sons sit this one out... again, that would be a worth topic of consideration.

JohnKerry jokes... are old. (So is fussing over the appearance of a 55 year old.) Cheap and easy, yes. Playing into decisive partisanship, yes. Stimulating anything worthwhile -- like the possible discussion of who is really "fighting" (when they let them off base and constant patrol) for our country and who is big-talking those who actually fight -- no.

This would be like a classroom discussion where the goal is just to build conversation -- no matter how worthy it is. Then, when a legitimate question arises, you shut down the discussion because you can't handle it. Worse, it was all wasted time because nothing of relevance was being discussed.

Still, I understand. When you can't really "fight back", you tend to kick the dog.

Jesus Christ on roller skates, Derve, you're such a nosebleed. And you called Althouse at home? Well, dammit, you're a pathetic stalker and loser, too.

Get over yourself, lady; no one gives a rip who you are or whether you feel abused. You are a nonentity, and you sound unhinged. Get help. Resume the meds. Whatever it takes. But go the hell somewhere else, dammit.

RC, this is too funny. Your envy of Althouse is almost palpable. I can actually see that little vein in mid-forehead straining against its seam. So to help out, I have offered a prayer for you to St. Jude, patron saint of lost causes.

I'm going to save up and buy you guys a sense of humor for next Christmas.

First off, no one has seriously argued that the troops like John Kerry. It would be a precarious argument to make, and really hard to back up.

So what we're left with is two photos.The one on Yahoo and other News sites is taken by the UK photographer for the Ministry of Defense. It's a PR photo. Yet, the troops in that photo aren't looking at Senator Kerry, a guy who once ran for president.That's your first hint.

Your second hint is that the Kerry camp just gave a reason for the photo of Kerry sitting alone. They said that he was "being interviewed".This may be the lamest excuse I've ever seen for a former presidential candidate being left alone in a mess hall.

And the Wurlitzer--izzat that li'l toy organ you might can hear if, if, you're dedicated enough to struggle mightily enough to tune out all three of the broadcast and all but one of the cable networks, all but one of the big-city national newspapers, all but two or three of the several dozens of major monthly and weekly news & cultural slicks, the vast preponderence of the education, entertainment, and publishing industries, the Arts, the federal government itself thru its vast social-engineering programs and cultural & otherwise NGO subsidiaries, and last but not least half or more of the blogosphere?

Buddy- You're wasting your time. The Military Times is sold to military people. It is not a military publication. It's USA Today, sorta.

From TFA:The results should not be read as representative of the military as a whole;

The links the koskids offer never pan out. The purpose of placing them here is a form of googlebombing. It will show up as a link from Althouse, and give page rank to the linked article. It's like comment spam.

I didn't know you could make the most uninteresting person I could name, John Kerry, less interesting, but somehow they've managed it.

Here is a statement from the Kerry office explaining the picture. I'd say Ann Althouse and the other wingers lobbing this pathetic atack on the Senator owe him an apology: “It’s a weird feeling seeing this photo of Sen. Kerry debated and decoded like some artifact out of the DaVinci Codes. It’s strange to me because I was there when the photo was taken. I traveled with Sen. Kerry throughout his Middle East trip. I’m his foreign policy staffer. Myself and Major McKnight were sitting right there when this photo was snapped.

Snubbed? Alone? Hardly. Sen. Kerry isn’t eating alone. In fact that photo is at an off the record breakfast meeting Senator Kerry conducted early Sunday morning with the very real Marc Santora of the New York Times Baghdad bureau and his younger colleague from the newspaper. The man shown in the green shirt across from Sen. Kerry is Marc Santora. Right after that interview was completed, Senator Kerry videotaped a message expressing his and the country’s support for the troops, to be shown on the armed services network in Iraq. Just the night before, Sen. Kerry was in that very same mess hall at a table where he ate dinner with about 10 U.S. soldiers.

Additionally, Senator Kerry spent nearly a day and half (out of two days in Iraq) outside of the Green Zone because he felt strongly that he wanted to hear from troops on the front lines. On Saturday morning, he greeted U.S. soldiers in Basra, and also met many British troops while he was there. On Saturday afternoon, he flew to FOB (Forward Operating Base) Warhorse, where he had a town hall meeting with over 100 soldiers. On Sunday morning, he was briefed by U.S. commanders at a training camp for Iraqi security forces. On Sunday evening, he traveled to another FOB where he had a long dinner in the camp mess hall with soldiers, including many from Massachusetts. These troops are nothing short of amazing, and my boss knows that with every fiber of his being. He’s a combat veteran. He’s been there.

Sen. Kerry knows that if you’re in public life, you’re going to have things you say and do taken out of context, sometimes photos even. It goes with the job. I just wanted to set the record straight about this photo not just because I was there and I know the truth, but because Sen. Kerry enjoyed his time and his conversations with the troops, and I hate to see anyone try to make some political hay out of all this or pretend this photo is something its not.”http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=5019

Lemme get this straight. You want Althouse to apoligize to Kerry on the basis of this Kerry Press release?

First, notice what's missing from the statement: that the troops wanted to, were excited to meet Kerry, or greeted Kerry.

Note the parsing of this statement:"...Alone? Hardly. Sen. Kerry isn’t eating alone. In fact that photo is at an off the record breakfast meeting Senator Kerry conducted early Sunday morning with the very real Marc Santora of the New York Times Baghdad bureau and his younger colleague from the newspaper."

So Kerry wasn't alone! He was with a reporter from the New York Times!

Gee.The next thing you know, Kerry's staff will start listing off the staff members that were with him on the trip just to prove he has friends.

Right after that interview was completed, Senator Kerry videotaped a message expressing his and the country’s support for the troops, to be shown on the armed services network in Iraq.

More lameness.How does this counter the argument that the troops didn't like Kerry?

"Just the night before, Sen. Kerry was in that very same mess hall at a table where he ate dinner with about 10 U.S. soldiers."

Missing from this statement?Soldiers who were excited to meet him. Soldiers who posed for photos with him.

Heck... I can travel to Baghdad and sit down at a table with 10 soldiers.I will get similiarly ignored.Of course, I didn't run for president. And in reality, I have a much better personality then Mr. Kerry, and I haven't said anything to piss off military people.

If you took a PR photo of me sitting down with a few soldiers, they might not be interested in me. But at least you might find one of them accidentally looking at me in the picture.